Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that a defendant was entitled to summary judgment where a plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence that a naval worker’s mesothelioma and death resulted from exposure to the defendant’s asbestos-containing products.

John Wineland worked on several Navy ships and in naval offices for 20 years beginning in the early 1960s. He worked mostly in ship engine rooms, where he repaired and maintained machinery and equipment, such as diesel engines and air compressors. He was later diagnosed as having mesothelioma, which resulted in his death. His estate sued Alfa Laval products, alleging negligence and strict liability. The plaintiff asserted that Wineland had been exposed to the defendant’s asbestos-containing products while working aboard various Navy ships. The defense moved for summary judgment.

Granting the motion, the district court found that to prevail on its claims, the plaintiff must prove that Wineland’s injuries resulted from asbestos exposure attributable to the defendant’s conduct. Moreover, the court said, under maritime law, which applies here, the plaintiff must show that Wineland’s exposure to asbestos from an Alfa Laval product was a substantial contributing factor to his injuries. Citing case law, the court added that evidence of minimal exposure is not enough. The plaintiff must prove the amount of exposure to dust from an Alfa Laval product and the duration of that exposure because without such proof, an inference of injury is mere conjecture. Simply placing a defendant’s products in the workplace and proving that a decedent had been exposed occasionally to asbestos dust is insufficient, the court found.

Applying these principles, the court found that the plaintiff had not produced evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that asbestos dust from an Alfa Laval product was anything more than minimal, if significant at all. Moreover, the court said, the defendant’s industrial hygienist opined that a study of Alfa Laval purifiers found no asbestos exposure resulted from routine cleaning tasks performed on the purifiers. Wineland, an engineman, would not have torn down or set up an Alfa Laval purifier and disturbed its asbestos-containing components, the court found.

The court concluded that the plaintiff had raised, at most, an inference that asbestos dust could be released from an Alfa Laval product if it were torn down or overhauled; however, the plaintiff did not offer proof regarding the duration or amount of any alleged asbestos exposure. Consequently, the court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding causation.

Citation: Wineland v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp., 2021 WL 3036855 (W.D. Wash. July 19, 2021).